God Saves Whom He Wills

[sdowney717]

Scripture says the elect obtain salvation and the rest are blinded.
Paul simply acknowledges this also when he writes here.
2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Paul endures all the hardships so that the 'elect' shall obtain the salvation which is in Christ.
He acknowledges only the elect will actually believe the gospel, this is so because when you look back to what Christ says, 'ALL that the FATHER GIVES ME will COME to ME, is speaking of those who are elect who will come to Christ in belief and they will be the saved. So such persons are elect to be saved before they are actually saved. But they must still come to Christ, so then Paul endures hardships to preach the word to all, knowing only the elect will obtain salvation, while the rest remain blinded. This is according to God's will. Paul also know his hard efforts are not in vain, that there are elect persons who will respond to the gospel.

As Martin Luther also acknowledges.
Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian G. Mattson

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned." - Martin Luther

Luther really had been given much and of him much was required, and Luther delivered with pure clear truth in what he had said. What marvelous words.

"If, then, we are taught and believe that we ought to be ignorant of the necessary foreknowledge of God and the necessity of events, Christian faith is utterly destroyed, and the promises of God and the whole gospel fall to the ground completely; for the Christian's chief and only comfort in every adversity lies in knowing that God does not lie, but brings all things to pass immutably, and that His will cannot be resisted, altered, or impeded."[36]



It is this foundational chapter in Luther's work that provides the basis for the rest of his conclusions.



While Luther analyzes many different arguments, and exegetes hundreds of passages of Scripture, the Sovereignty of God is the fundamental truth by which his conclusions are reached.



It is from this that he continues by asserting God's absolute control over man's salvation through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. It is from the Sovereignty of God that he also argues for God's control over the reprobation of the wicked by means of sovereign control, working evil through them, and handing them over to their sins.



Luther argues against the Erasmian thesis of the cooperative will on the grounds that the human will is bound by sin as a result of the fall of man.



Erasmus fully realized the implications of Luther's strong statement of God's sovereignty. He writes that if this teaching of God's sovereignty is proclaimed, "Who will try and reform his life?"[37]



Luther lashes back, "I reply, Nobody! Nobody can! God has no time for your practitioners of self-reformation, for they are hypocrites. The elect, who fear God, will be reformed by the Holy Spirit; the rest will perish unreformed."[38]



Erasmus pushes the point: "Who will believe that God loves him?"



Luther stands his ground: "I reply, Nobody! Nobody can! But the elect shall believe it; and the rest shall perish without believing it, raging and blaspheming, as you describe them. So there will be some who believe it."[39]



This is the central point Erasmus makes in his Diatribe, that God's sovereignty should not be emphasized to the point that the freedom of man's will is usurped.



Luther fires volley after volley, arguing that unless the sovereign God changes the heart of man, none shall accept the gospel. He writes:



"God has surely promised His grace to the humbled: that is, to those who mourn over and despair of themselves. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realises [sic] that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another - God alone."[40]



Thus Luther affirms the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation. In this same passage, Luther also goes on to speak of those who are not elect, that is, the reprobate. He realizes that his theology will not allow him to speak only of the elect, but of the non-elect as well. He writes:



"Thus God conceals His eternal mercy and loving kindness beneath eternal wrath, His righteousness beneath unrighteousness. Now, the highest degree of faith is to believe that He is merciful, though he saves so few and damns so many; to believe that He is just, though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for damnation, and seems (in Erasmus' words) 'to delight in the torments of poor wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love.' If I could by any means understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith. But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of faith when these things are preached and published; just as, when God kills, faith in life is exercised in death."[41]



Thus Luther exhibits no qualms about following his theology to it's logical conclusion.



Time and time again he makes this known. He uses the specific examples of Pharoah, Judas, and Esau to prove his case that God sovereignly, in the counsel of His own will, determined to harden and reprobate them. At this point it is best to allow Luther to express his own views.



"Here, God Incarnate says: 'I would, and thou wouldst not.' God Incarnate, I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit He offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God's secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing and offering. . . .It belongs to the same God Incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish. Nor is it for us to ask why He does so, but to stand in awe of God, Who can do, and wills to do such things."[42]



"On your view [Erasmus], God will elect nobody, and no place for election will be left; all that is left is freedom of will to heed or defy the long-suffering and wrath of God. But if God is thus robbed of His power and wisdom in election, what will He be but just that idol, Chance, under whose sway all things happen at random? Eventually, we shall come to this: that men may be saved and damned without God's knowledge! For He will not have marked out by sure election those that should be saved and those that should be damned; He will merely have set before all men His general long-suffering, which forbears and hardens, together with His chastening and punishing mercy, and left it to them to choose whether they would be saved or damned, while He Himself, perchance, goes off, as Homer says, to an Ethiopian banquet!"[43]

 

[MDC]

Scripture says the elect obtain salvation and the rest are blinded.
Paul simply acknowledges this also when he writes here.
2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Paul endures all the hardships so that the 'elect' shall obtain the salvation which is in Christ.
He acknowledges only the elect will actually believe the gospel, this is so because when you look back to what Christ says, 'ALL that the FATHER GIVES ME will COME to ME, is speaking of those who are elect who will come to Christ in belief and they will be the saved. So such persons are elect to be saved before they are actually saved. But they must still come to Christ, so then Paul endures hardships to preach the word to all, knowing only the elect will obtain salvation, while the rest remain blinded. This is according to God's will. Paul also know his hard efforts are not in vain, that there are elect persons who will respond to the gospel.

As Martin Luther also acknowledges.
Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian G. Mattson

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned." - Martin Luther

Luther really had been given much and of him much was required, and Luther delivered with pure clear truth in what he had said. What marvelous words.

"If, then, we are taught and believe that we ought to be ignorant of the necessary foreknowledge of God and the necessity of events, Christian faith is utterly destroyed, and the promises of God and the whole gospel fall to the ground completely; for the Christian's chief and only comfort in every adversity lies in knowing that God does not lie, but brings all things to pass immutably, and that His will cannot be resisted, altered, or impeded."[36]



It is this foundational chapter in Luther's work that provides the basis for the rest of his conclusions.



While Luther analyzes many different arguments, and exegetes hundreds of passages of Scripture, the Sovereignty of God is the fundamental truth by which his conclusions are reached.



It is from this that he continues by asserting God's absolute control over man's salvation through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. It is from the Sovereignty of God that he also argues for God's control over the reprobation of the wicked by means of sovereign control, working evil through them, and handing them over to their sins.



Luther argues against the Erasmian thesis of the cooperative will on the grounds that the human will is bound by sin as a result of the fall of man.



Erasmus fully realized the implications of Luther's strong statement of God's sovereignty. He writes that if this teaching of God's sovereignty is proclaimed, "Who will try and reform his life?"[37]



Luther lashes back, "I reply, Nobody! Nobody can! God has no time for your practitioners of self-reformation, for they are hypocrites. The elect, who fear God, will be reformed by the Holy Spirit; the rest will perish unreformed."[38]



Erasmus pushes the point: "Who will believe that God loves him?"



Luther stands his ground: "I reply, Nobody! Nobody can! But the elect shall believe it; and the rest shall perish without believing it, raging and blaspheming, as you describe them. So there will be some who believe it."[39]



This is the central point Erasmus makes in his Diatribe, that God's sovereignty should not be emphasized to the point that the freedom of man's will is usurped.



Luther fires volley after volley, arguing that unless the sovereign God changes the heart of man, none shall accept the gospel. He writes:



"God has surely promised His grace to the humbled: that is, to those who mourn over and despair of themselves. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realises [sic] that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another - God alone."[40]



Thus Luther affirms the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation. In this same passage, Luther also goes on to speak of those who are not elect, that is, the reprobate. He realizes that his theology will not allow him to speak only of the elect, but of the non-elect as well. He writes:



"Thus God conceals His eternal mercy and loving kindness beneath eternal wrath, His righteousness beneath unrighteousness. Now, the highest degree of faith is to believe that He is merciful, though he saves so few and damns so many; to believe that He is just, though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for damnation, and seems (in Erasmus' words) 'to delight in the torments of poor wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love.' If I could by any means understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith. But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of faith when these things are preached and published; just as, when God kills, faith in life is exercised in death."[41]



Thus Luther exhibits no qualms about following his theology to it's logical conclusion.



Time and time again he makes this known. He uses the specific examples of Pharoah, Judas, and Esau to prove his case that God sovereignly, in the counsel of His own will, determined to harden and reprobate them. At this point it is best to allow Luther to express his own views.



"Here, God Incarnate says: 'I would, and thou wouldst not.' God Incarnate, I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit He offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God's secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing and offering. . . .It belongs to the same God Incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish. Nor is it for us to ask why He does so, but to stand in awe of God, Who can do, and wills to do such things."[42]



"On your view [Erasmus], God will elect nobody, and no place for election will be left; all that is left is freedom of will to heed or defy the long-suffering and wrath of God. But if God is thus robbed of His power and wisdom in election, what will He be but just that idol, Chance, under whose sway all things happen at random? Eventually, we shall come to this: that men may be saved and damned without God's knowledge! For He will not have marked out by sure election those that should be saved and those that should be damned; He will merely have set before all men His general long-suffering, which forbears and hardens, together with His chastening and punishing mercy, and left it to them to choose whether they would be saved or damned, while He Himself, perchance, goes off, as Homer says, to an Ethiopian banquet!"[43]

What words of edification for Gods people! These truths are so humbling to the elect of God.. And a stumbling stone and rock of offense that further hardens the reprobate in their sin and unbelief

 

[TheSeabass]

No - they say that one is elect first (with the expected drawing and giving by the Father as per Jesus words coming as a result of God's unconditional election).

They say that then one is able to obey the command to believe because of those actions done by the Father (some but not all would say that that includes "regeneration").

They say that then one receives the Holy Spirit based on their obedience to the command to believe on Christ and be justified before God - which in turn allows them to work and obey in the process of sanctification.

Most Calvinists are very particular in their wording regarding the order of the various phases involved in soteriology.

Election is not salvation. No Calvinist says that it is. That is a straw man on your part.

Even the elect were children of wrath before and up until they exercised saving faith.

All Reformed (like myself) believe that to be true whether they self identify as a "Calvinist" or not.

You are conflating election with justification. That is very similar to what you do with predestination and the idea of coercive force by God.

No Calvinist believes or teaches that election equals justification - only you say such a thing. No Calvinist believes or teaches that predestination equals coercive force. - only you say such a thing.

I doubt that you are being "attacked" because you say "one must do the work of obeying BEFORE he can be justified/saved". Likely what you are being taken to task about is your saying in effect that fallen men have the ability to and inclination to understand and obey the command to believe in and of themselves. The scriptures teach otherwise.

While that is not a full on "Pelagian" view - it is a simi-Pelagian view and it is wrong. In a nutshell, Pelagians believe that fallen man can earn his salvation. I do not believe that you think that.

But you seem to deny that fallen men have, as a result of God's judgment, an inability and lack of inclination to believe the gospel aside from a opening of the eyes to truth and a drawing by the Father to the Son ending in belief and justification. You do seem to believe that and it is wrong according to Romans and also the direct teaching of Jesus.

Romans teaches that mankind in the natural state is under a judgment which includes an abandonment to unbelief.

The Lord taught that no one can come to Him unless given to Him and thus drawn to Him by the Father. He even told Peter that "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you - but my Father in Heaven.

If I am making it a point to use wording which most Calvinist do not use with you - it is only because I care enough about you to try (perhaps in vain) to reason with you and show where you are depicting Calvinistic beliefs wrongly and arguing against straw men much of the time - perhaps even doing it with not realizing it since you misunderstand what others believe and teach.

Election and salvation are the same thing. Can you show me one example from the NT gospel of one who was elect but not saved or saved but not elect? No such thing exists.

1 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as I earlier showed these 2 verses show that election has nothing to do with God, before the world began, arbitrarily or unconditionally choosing certain individuals to be saved apart from the word, apart from obedience on part of the individual and apart from the the individuals free will choice

You post "The Lord taught that no one can come to Him unless given to Him and thus drawn to Him by the Father. "
As been explained many times just on this forum alone John 6:45 shows how the drawing of god is done, it is done by His word when one is 'taught' as 'heard' and 'learned' then one of his own free will "cometh unto Me". The drawing therefore is nothing miraculous, unknown, irresistible or done apart from the word or man's free will.

You post "...to reason with you and show where you are depicting Calvinistic beliefs wrongly and arguing against straw men much of the time..."

Ironically it is a straw man on your part to accuse me of using straw man arguments against Calvinism. Please just point out just one of those "straw mans" I have created against Calvinism.

You post "But you seem to deny that fallen men have, as a result of God's judgment, an inability and lack of inclination to believe the gospel aside from a opening of the eyes to truth and a drawing by the Father to the Son ending in belief and justification. "

AS I have shown before form the bible those Peter preached to in Acts 2 and those Stephen preached to in Acts 7 were spiritully dead, lost as you say "fallen men" yet they understood what was preached to them, those in Acts 2 understood, believed what was preached, pricked in their heart by what was preached so much so they asked what to do and obeyed Peter's command of verse 38. They did not first have to be "enlightened" or "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit before they could understand. Such an idea is added to bible contexts.

Those in Acts 7:54 "When they heard these things," spoken by Stephen. The verb 'heard' [akouo] means they understood, perceived, comprehended what was said to them. Obviously they did not murder Stephen because they did not understand what he was saying. Since men can understand what they read/watch in a magazine/newspaper or TV show there is no valid reason they cannot understand the gospel when presented to them. No point in the great commission in taking the gospel to the world if the world possibly cannot understand it.

 

[TheSeabass]

Scripture says the elect obtain salvation and the rest are blinded.
Paul simply acknowledges this also when he writes here.
2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Paul endures all the hardships so that the 'elect' shall obtain the salvation which is in Christ.
He acknowledges only the elect will actually believe the gospel, this is so because when you look back to what Christ says, 'ALL that the FATHER GIVES ME will COME to ME, is speaking of those who are elect who will come to Christ in belief and they will be the saved. So such persons are elect to be saved before they are actually saved. But they must still come to Christ, so then Paul endures hardships to preach the word to all, knowing only the elect will obtain salvation, while the rest remain blinded. This is according to God's will. Paul also know his hard efforts are not in vain, that there are elect persons who will respond to the gospel.

As Martin Luther also acknowledges.
Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian G. Mattson

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned." - Martin Luther

Luther really had been given much and of him much was required, and Luther delivered with pure clear truth in what he had said. What marvelous words.

"If, then, we are taught and believe that we ought to be ignorant of the necessary foreknowledge of God and the necessity of events, Christian faith is utterly destroyed, and the promises of God and the whole gospel fall to the ground completely; for the Christian's chief and only comfort in every adversity lies in knowing that God does not lie, but brings all things to pass immutably, and that His will cannot be resisted, altered, or impeded."[36]



It is this foundational chapter in Luther's work that provides the basis for the rest of his conclusions.



While Luther analyzes many different arguments, and exegetes hundreds of passages of Scripture, the Sovereignty of God is the fundamental truth by which his conclusions are reached.



It is from this that he continues by asserting God's absolute control over man's salvation through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. It is from the Sovereignty of God that he also argues for God's control over the reprobation of the wicked by means of sovereign control, working evil through them, and handing them over to their sins.



Luther argues against the Erasmian thesis of the cooperative will on the grounds that the human will is bound by sin as a result of the fall of man.



Erasmus fully realized the implications of Luther's strong statement of God's sovereignty. He writes that if this teaching of God's sovereignty is proclaimed, "Who will try and reform his life?"[37]



Luther lashes back, "I reply, Nobody! Nobody can! God has no time for your practitioners of self-reformation, for they are hypocrites. The elect, who fear God, will be reformed by the Holy Spirit; the rest will perish unreformed."[38]



Erasmus pushes the point: "Who will believe that God loves him?"



Luther stands his ground: "I reply, Nobody! Nobody can! But the elect shall believe it; and the rest shall perish without believing it, raging and blaspheming, as you describe them. So there will be some who believe it."[39]



This is the central point Erasmus makes in his Diatribe, that God's sovereignty should not be emphasized to the point that the freedom of man's will is usurped.



Luther fires volley after volley, arguing that unless the sovereign God changes the heart of man, none shall accept the gospel. He writes:



"God has surely promised His grace to the humbled: that is, to those who mourn over and despair of themselves. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realises [sic] that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another - God alone."[40]



Thus Luther affirms the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation. In this same passage, Luther also goes on to speak of those who are not elect, that is, the reprobate. He realizes that his theology will not allow him to speak only of the elect, but of the non-elect as well. He writes:



"Thus God conceals His eternal mercy and loving kindness beneath eternal wrath, His righteousness beneath unrighteousness. Now, the highest degree of faith is to believe that He is merciful, though he saves so few and damns so many; to believe that He is just, though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for damnation, and seems (in Erasmus' words) 'to delight in the torments of poor wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love.' If I could by any means understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith. But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of faith when these things are preached and published; just as, when God kills, faith in life is exercised in death."[41]



Thus Luther exhibits no qualms about following his theology to it's logical conclusion.



Time and time again he makes this known. He uses the specific examples of Pharoah, Judas, and Esau to prove his case that God sovereignly, in the counsel of His own will, determined to harden and reprobate them. At this point it is best to allow Luther to express his own views.



"Here, God Incarnate says: 'I would, and thou wouldst not.' God Incarnate, I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit He offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God's secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing and offering. . . .It belongs to the same God Incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish. Nor is it for us to ask why He does so, but to stand in awe of God, Who can do, and wills to do such things."[42]



"On your view [Erasmus], God will elect nobody, and no place for election will be left; all that is left is freedom of will to heed or defy the long-suffering and wrath of God. But if God is thus robbed of His power and wisdom in election, what will He be but just that idol, Chance, under whose sway all things happen at random? Eventually, we shall come to this: that men may be saved and damned without God's knowledge! For He will not have marked out by sure election those that should be saved and those that should be damned; He will merely have set before all men His general long-suffering, which forbears and hardens, together with His chastening and punishing mercy, and left it to them to choose whether they would be saved or damned, while He Himself, perchance, goes off, as Homer says, to an Ethiopian banquet!"[43]

NOT ONE SINGLE VERSE says before the world began that God unconditionally for some unknown reason chose certain individuals to be saved apart for the word, apart from man's obedience, apart from man's free will.

Quoting Martin Luther does not help you for he was in error on many things. He is well known for perverting God's word by adding the word "alone' to it in trying to make God's word teach 'faith alone' when it does not. Are you quoting Luther because you cannot find that one single verse that says before the world began that God unconditionally for some unknown reason chose certain individuals to be saved apart for the word, apart from man's obedience, apart from man's free will?

You post "He acknowledges only the elect will actually believe the gospel,"

There is no such thing as an UNbelieving elect. As I have shown from 1 Peter 1:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 becoming part of the elect requires obedience on the part of man and believing is a form of obeying therefore man must first believe ("belief of the truth" 2 Thess 2:13) BEFORE he can be of the elect.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Election and salvation are the same thing. Can you show me one example from the NT gospel of one who was elect but not saved or saved but not elect? No such thing exists.

Of course no such thing exists either in the N.T. or the history of the world.

All that the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son and be saved.

But election and salvation are not the same thing.

One is the choice by the Father as to who of the undeserving mass of His enemies He will have mercy on and draw to the Son for salvation.

The other is the process of translating those who come to the Son from being enemies of God without hope and without God in this world to glorified Sons of God in eternity without the possibility of ever sinning again.

1 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as I earlier showed these 2 verses show that election has nothing to do with God, before the world began, arbitrarily or unconditionally choosing certain individuals to be saved apart from the word, apart from obedience on part of the individual and apart from the the individuals free will choice

So what if those verses don't prove anything (not that I agree that they don't)?

No one has ever said that the choice of God is arbitrary - only that there is nothing in the sinner himself which makes God choose to enlighten him while He passes others by.

No one has ever said any individuals are "saved apart from the word, apart from obedience on part of the individual and apart from the the individuals free will choice". In fact just the opposite has been said by me and it has been pointed out to you several times now that The Westminster Confession of Faith (the most authoritative and widely accepted source on Calvinistic soteriology) says the same as I have said time and time again.

You don't seem to be able or at least willing to make your case without resorting to misrepresentations of what Calvinists believe and teach.

You post "The Lord taught that no one can come to Him unless given to Him and thus drawn to Him by the Father. "
As been explained many times just on this forum alone John 6:45 shows how the drawing of god is done, it is done by His word when one is 'taught' as 'heard' and 'learned' then one of his own free will "cometh unto Me". The drawing therefore is nothing miraculous, unknown, irresistible or done apart from the word or man's free will.

I agree with all of this until you go off the deep end with that last sentence.

When Peter made his confession, Jesus said - "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father in Heaven". No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

Of course you do add "apart from the word or man's free will". We have already covered the fact that Calvinists believe and teach that no one is saved apart form the word and man's choosing to accept the Lord as Savior out of his own will.

No more straw men please.

You post "...to reason with you and show where you are depicting Calvinistic beliefs wrongly and arguing against straw men much of the time..."

Ironically it is a straw man on your part to accuse me of using straw man arguments against Calvinism. Please just point out just one of those "straw mans" I have created against Calvinism.

I have - in this post alone.

AS I have shown before form the bible those Peter preached to in Acts 2 and those Stephen preached to in Acts 7 were spiritully dead, lost as you say "fallen men" yet they understood what was preached to them, those in Acts 2 understood, believed what was preached, pricked in their heart by what was preached so much so they asked what to do and obeyed Peter's command of verse 38. They did not first have to be "enlightened" or "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit before they could understand.

We don't need to get into the order of salvation controversy here. But the fact is that you have no idea if they were spiritually "dead" when they understood and obeyed the gospel which was preached to them.

Since men can understand what they read/watch in a magazine/newspaper or TV show there is no valid reason they cannot understand the gospel when presented to them.

I have never claimed that fallen men cannot understand the gospel on a purely physical or "soulish" level. No Calvinist has done so either that I am aware of.

What we have done is repeated exactly what the scriptures teach. Namely that the natural man does not receive the things of God and indeed cannot understand the things of God because they are spiritually understood and he is spiritually dead.

Certainly multitudes heard and understood on an earthly level the things which Jesus taught. But although many are called few are chosen. When Peter made his confession it was because the God had enlightened him on a spiritual level.

No point in the great commission in taking the gospel to the world if the world possibly cannot understand it.

No point if the gospel is only heard by men who will not and indeed cannot receive it. But with God all things are possible. Flesh and blood does not reveal the truth of the gospel to men. Only the Father can do that and He will only do that for those He has given to the Son according to His inscrutable election.

Many are called but only the elect are chosen.

Such an idea is added to bible contexts.

Such things are not "added" to the scripture. But neither are they left out of a good systematic soteriological theology.

If you include all of the scripture in your deliberations you will of necessity come up with a very similar kind of formulation which the 140 member Westminster Assembly came up with over 10 years of their prayerful deliberations.

So called "Reformed" theologians don't have the luxury of picking and choosing which concepts from scripture they are most comfortable with. They tend to take all of it into consideration instead.

That systematic inclusion of all concepts in scripture is the reason that all really good systematic theology works from the time of the Reformation until now have come down more or less exactly as I believe and am teaching here.

 

[Marvin Knox]

NOT ONE SINGLE VERSE says before the world began that God unconditionally for some unknown reason chose certain individuals to be saved apart for the word, apart from man's obedience, apart from man's free will...........
Are you quoting Luther because you cannot find that one single verse that says before the world began that God unconditionally for some unknown reason chose certain individuals to be saved apart for the word, apart from man's obedience, apart from man's free will?

Are you not able to make a case without resorting to straw men?

No Calvinist says that individuals are saved apart from the word, apart from man's obedience, and apart from man's free will.

(Of course they will debate with you all day long just how "free" the will of fallen man is.)

Why will you not cease from misrepresenting what Calvinist believe and teach?

As I have shown from 1 Peter 1:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 becoming part of the elect requires obedience on the part of man and believing is a form of obeying therefore man must first believe ("belief of the truth" 2 Thess 2:13) BEFORE he can be of the elect.

Those verses teach no such thing.

There is no such thing as an UNbelieving elect.

That simply is not true. No Calvinist would say that there is no such thing as an unbelieving elect person.

We were all unbelieving before being drawn to the Lord by the Father. All of the elect were initially "children of wrath" and "enemies of God" just as the rest of the world are.

It is quite possible to be among the elect and yet not yet saved. One is justified before God only through faith. No Calvinist believes or teaches otherwise.

Why will you not cease from misrepresenting what Calvinist believe and teach?

 

[TheSeabass]

Are you not able to make a case without resorting to straw men?

No Calvinist says that individuals are saved apart from the word, apart from man's obedience, and apart from man's free will.

(Of course they will debate with you all day long just how "free" the will of fallen man is.)

Why will you not cease from misrepresenting what Calvinist believe and teach?

Those verses teach no such thing.

That simply is not true. No Calvinist would say that there is no such thing as an unbelieving elect person.

We were all unbelieving before being drawn to the Lord by the Father. All of the elect were initially "children of wrath" and "enemies of God" just as the rest of the world are.

It is quite possible to be among the elect and yet not yet saved. One is justified before God only through faith. No Calvinist believes or teaches otherwise.

Why will you not cease from misrepresenting what Calvinist believe and teach?

You have yet to show any straw man I have presented about Calvinism.

What is the relationship between faith and works? | carm

Above is a link to a Calvinist website that denies one has to do any works to be saved. If one does not have to do any works t be saved, then that eliminates the work of obeying the will of God in being saved.

Do you or do you not deny one must be obedient in submitting to God's will in being water baptized in order to be saved?

You have not proven one can be elect but not saved or saved but not elect for they are synonymous terms.

 

[Marvin Knox]

What is the relationship between faith and works? | carm
Above is a link to a Calvinist website that denies one has to do any works to be saved. If one does not have to do any works t be saved, then that eliminates the work of obeying the will of God in being saved.

I repeat for you here:

If I am making it a point to use wording which most Calvinist do not use with you - it is only because I care enough about you to try (perhaps in vain) to reason with you and show where you are depicting Calvinistic beliefs wrongly and arguing against straw men much of the time - perhaps even doing it with not realizing it since you misunderstand what others believe and teach.

Since you insist that believing is a "work" - and since all Calvinists believe that one must believe to be saved - I am agreeing with you that one must do a "work" to be saved.

I am using your own term (works) to present to you the fact that there is no difference between you and Calvinists in that respect. As I said, it is perhaps in vain since you don't seem to want to understand.

The author in the link did not say that one did not have to believe to be saved. He merely used the word "works" in he way that I told you most Calvinists mean it.

Do you or do you not deny one must be obedient in submitting to God's will in being water baptized in order to be saved?

Yes I do deny it.

Most Calvinists would explain to you that many are not able to be baptized and yet are saved. Witness the thief on the cross.

Most Calvinists would explain to you that if one refuses baptism it is a sign that perhaps he really doesn't have faith in the truly biblical sense.

You have not proven one can be elect but not saved or saved but not elect for they are synonymous terms.

They are not synonymous terms. I have explained why.

One can be elect and not yet hear the gospel and believe unto justification. That was the case for all adult elect including John Calvin and Martin Luther.

Every Calvinist would tell you that.

To claim that they believe otherwise is a straw man you use.

No one believes and teaches that one is saved automatically because he is among the elect. However, they do teach that he will eventually be saved if he is among the elect.

All those the Father give to the Son will come to the Son eventually.

I've been through these beliefs before with you and you simply want to beat up on straw men rather than change what you say Calvinists believe and thus no longer sin against your brothers by misrepresenting them.

You have yet to show any straw man I have presented about Calvinism.

Of course I have.

I have pointed out and corrected your straw men here in this post in fact.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Election and salvation are the same thing.

No, they are not. Election is not even about salvation. Election is about being chosen for service. Proven by every example of election given in the Scriptures, from the OT to the NT.

Can you show me one example from the NT gospel of one who was elect but not saved or saved but not elect? No such thing exists.

Again, wrong. John 6:70 - Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 70 - (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

Are you prepared to argue that Judas was saved? I hope not.

1 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as I earlier showed these 2 verses show that election has nothing to do with God, before the world began, arbitrarily or unconditionally choosing certain individuals to be saved apart from the word, apart from obedience on part of the individual and apart from the the individuals free will choice

1 Peter 1:2 isn't the verse to argue the purpose of election. A better verse is Eph 1:4, which says that God chose us (believers) to be holy and blameless. Clearly, election is for service. As also shown in John 6:70 and Judas.

Re: 2 Thess 2:13, the word translated "chosen" (haireomai) isn't related at all to the verb that is translated "elected" (eklegomai).

Here's the fact:
Every election involves a choice.
But very few choices involve an election.

That's how to understand election from simple picking from among options.

The Bible shows that election and appointment are the same thing. When God elects, He is appointing.

There is a lot of misunderstanding in the election of Paul. So let's do the Berean thing and see what Scripture says about his election:

Acts 9:15 - But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.

Acts 22:10 - "'What shall I do, Lord?' I asked. "'Get up,' the Lord said, 'and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’

Acts 26:16 - ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me.

Col 1:25 - I have become its (the Church) servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness—

1 Tim 1:12 - I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me trustworthy, appointing me to his service.

1 Tim 2:7 - And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

I am not a Calvinist but I agree that election is unconditional (2nd point of TULIP). However, I reject that election is unto salvation. If that were true, then salvation is NOT by faith at all, but simply by God's unilateral choice. Which the Bible does NOT teach. Eph 2:8 teaches that salvation is by grace through faith. If election was to salvation, Paul would have written "we are saved by grace through election or God's choice", or something like that. But if unconditional election were to salvation, then faith would play no part in it at all. It would all depend only on God's choice of who to save.

Consider 1 Cor 1:21 regarding God's choice:
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

So, this is God's choice: to save those who believe. One MUST believe in order to be saved. Which was Paul's answer to the jailer.